Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNCS000435_Asheville MS4 Inspection Report_20181218 CITY OF ASHEVILLE, NC MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4) PROGRAM INSPECTION REPORT ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 161 S. Charlotte Street Asheville, NC 28801 Inspection Report Finalized: December 18, 2018 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Energy, Mineral & Land Resources Stormwater Program 512 N. Salisbury Street, 9th floor 1612 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1612 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street SW Atlanta, GA 30303-8963 MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 i (This page intentionally left blank) MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Inspection Details .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Permittee Information .................................................................................................................................. 2 Supporting Documents ................................................................................................................................. 3 Program Implementation, Documentation, & Assessment .......................................................................... 4 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) ........................................................................................ 7 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program Delegation Status ............................................................... 10 Construction Site Runoff Controls .............................................................................................................. 10 Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations ................................................. 13 Site Visit Evaluation: Municipal Facility No. 1 ............................................................................................. 17 Site Visit Evaluation: Municipal Facility No. 2 ............................................................................................. 19 Site Visit Evaluation: MS4 Outfall No. 1 ...................................................................................................... 21 Site Visit Evaluation: MS4 Outfall No. 2 ...................................................................................................... 23 Site Visit Evaluation: Construction Site No. 1 ............................................................................................. 25 Site Visit Evaluation: Construction Site No. 2 ............................................................................................. 27 Appendix A: Supporting Documents Appendix B: Photograph Log This inspection consisted of an evaluation of program compliance with the issued permit and implementation of the approved Stormwater Management Plan. This inspection report does not include a review of all program components. Program deficiencies in addition to those noted may be present. The permittee is required to assess program progress and permit compliance, and to implement the approved Stormwater Management Plan in accordance with the issued permit. MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 iii This page intentionally left blank MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 1 of 28 Inspection Details Inspection ID Number: SW-NCS000435-09/28/18 Inspection Date(s): September 27-28, 2018 Minimum Control Measures Evaluated: ☒Program Implementation ☐Public Education & Outreach ☐Public Involvement and Participation ☒Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination ☒Construction Site Runoff Controls ☐Post-Construction Site Runoff Controls ☒Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations ☐Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Field Site Visits: ☒Municipal Facilities. Number visited: 2 ☒MS4 Outfalls. Number visited: 2 ☒Construction Sites. Number visited: 2 ☐ Post-Construction Stormwater Runoff Controls. Number visited: Choose an item. ☐ Other: ________________________________. Number visited: Choose an item. ☐ Other: ________________________________. Number visited: Choose an item. Inspector(s) Conducting Inspection Name, Title Organization Sean Ireland, Stormwater Enforcement Workgroup Lead EPA Region 4 Ahmad Dromgoole, Stormwater Enforcement Workgroup EPA Region 4 Kevin Stockton, EPA Contractor PG Environmental Taylor Fontaine, EPA Contractor PG Environmental Annette Lucas, Stormwater Program Supervisor North Carolina Dept of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources (DEMLR) Jeanette Powell, MS4 Program Coordinator NCDEQ, DEMLR Michael Smith, Assistant Regional Engineer NCDEQ, DEMLR Isaiah Reed, Environmental Specialist NCDEQ, DEMLR Julie Coco, State Sediment Program Engineer NCDEQ, DEMLR Taylor Young, Assistant State Sediment Program Engineer NCDEQ, DEMLR Inspection Report Author: Kevin Stockton Signature__________________________________________ Date: 12/18/2018 Inspection Report Author: Taylor Fontaine Signature__________________________________________ Date: 12/18/2018 MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 2 of 28 Permittee Information MS4 Permittee Name: City of Asheville (COA; hereinafter, the City or COA) NPDES Permit Number: NCS000435 (hereinafter, the Permit) City, State, ZIP: Asheville, NC, 288801 Date of Last MS4 Inspection/Audit: October 28, 2015 Co-permittee(s), if applicable: None Primary MS4 Representatives Participating in Inspection Name, Title Organization McCray Coates, Stormwater Coordinator COA Keisha Lipe, Stormwater Quality Specialist COA Nancy Watford, Stormwater Supervisor COA Monte Clampett, Construction Coordinator COA Nancy Watford, Stormwater Supervisor COA Thana Alley, Residential Review Specialist COA Danny Gibson, Stormwater Construction Inspector COA Gary Jarvis, Construction Inspector COA Frank Rapp, Plan Reviewer COA MS4 Receiving Waters Waterbody Impairments French Broad River Fecal Coliform (from Mud Creek to NC 146), Benthos (from Fletcher Martin Road to Sandymush Creek) Ross Creek Benthos (from I-240 to backwaters of Lake Kenilworth) South Hominy Creek Benthos (from Warren Creek to Hominy Creek) Note: Only waterbodies with 303(d) impairments that receive discharges from the Asheville MS4 are listed here. MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 3 of 28 Supporting Documents Number Document Title Provided Prior to/During/After Inspection: 1 Riverlink Inspection Maintenance Agreement (signed) During Inspection 2 IDDE Program Prior to Inspection 3 IDDE Complaint Spreadsheet Prior to Inspection 4 Illicit Discharge Brochure Prior to Inspection 5 Adopted Permit Fees During Inspection 6 Spill Response Procedures Prior to Inspection 7 Vacuum Trucks Process During Inspection 8 City Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) Prior to Inspection 9 COA SCM Monitoring Spreadsheet During Inspection 10 COA Storm Sewer System Map Screenshot: Craven Street Outfalls Prior to Inspection 11 Accela Construction Inspection Report: 55 S. Market St., 9/28/2018 After Inspection 12 Accela Construction Inspection Report: Skyland Exchange, 9/28/2018 After Inspection Note: Refer to Appendix A: Supporting Document Log for copies of the above -referenced documents. The supporting documents listed here and referenced throughout this report do not represent all MS4 documentation provided to the inspection team by COA representatives. All documentation provided to the inspection team by COA representatives is maintained by EPA Region 4. Additionally, the photographs contained in Appendix B: Photograph Log and referenced throughout this report do not represent all photographs taken by the inspection team during the inspection. All photographs taken by the inspection team are maintained by EPA Region 4. MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 4 of 28 Program Implementation, Documentation, & Assessment Permit Citation Program Requirement Status Supporting Doc No. II.A.1 Staffing and Funding The permittee maintained adequate funding and staffing to implement and manage the provisions of the Stormwater Plan and meet all requirements of the permit. Yes --- The Stormwater Plan identifies a specific position(s) responsible for the overall coordination, implementation, and revision to the Plan. Yes --- Responsibilities for all components of the Stormwater Plan are documented and position(s) assignments provided. No --- The permittee is current on payment of invoiced administering and compliance monitoring fees. Yes --- Comments COA maintained a Stormwater Services Organizational Chart, which was contained in the 2017-2018 MS4 Annual Report and listed the titles of COA employees responsible for implementing the MS4 program. However, the Stormwater Services Organizational Chart did not identify the specific responsibilities/assignments of each employee responsible for implementing the MS4 program. The City did not have a stand-alone Stormwater Plan document; instead, the most recent annual report acted as the Stormwater Plan. COA’s MS4 annual reports were available on the City’s website. Recommendation: Generate a stand-alone Stormwater Plan document that contains procedures for the implementation of each program element. II.A.2 Stormwater Plan Implementation and Evaluation The permittee evaluated the performance and effectiveness of the program components at least annually. Yes --- If yes, the permittee used the results of the evaluation to modify the program components as necessary to accomplish the intent of the Stormwater Program. Yes --- Did the permitted MS4 discharges cause or contribute to non-attainment of an applicable water quality standards? Not Reviewed --- If yes, did the permittee expand or better tailor its BMPs accordingly? Not Reviewed --- Comments COA representatives explained that the effectiveness of the program was evaluated in conjunction with preparing each annual report, and modifications to the program were made as necessary. For example, approximately a year before the inspection, COA representatives determined that increasing the exposure of municipal employees to stormwater training would improve the program. As a result, the City started providing stormwater training as part of the orientation process for new employees. II.A.3 Keeping the Stormwater Plan Up to Date The permittee kept the Stormwater Plan up to date. Partial --- The permittee notified DEMLR of any updates to the Stormwater Plan. No --- MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 5 of 28 Program Implementation, Documentation, & Assessment Permit Citation Program Requirement Status Supporting Doc No. Comments (indicate the date of latest Stormwater Plan and describe the nature of any updates, if applicable). As described above, the City’s most recent annual report (2017-2018) acted as the Stormwater Plan; however, City representatives stated that DEMLR was not notified of specific updates to the Stormwater Plan. Recommendation: Include in each annual report a description and rationale for all modifications made to the Stormwater Plan during the reporting period. II.A.4 Availability of the Stormwater Plan The permittee kept an up-to-date version of its Stormwater Plan available to the Division and the public online. Yes --- The online materials included ordinances, or other regulatory mechanisms, or a list identifying the ordinances, or other regulatory mechanisms, providing the legal authority necessary to implement and enforce the requirements of the permit. Yes --- Comments The City’s MS4 Annual Reports with the most recent annual report acting as the Stormwater Plan and ordinances were accessible through the City’s website. II.A.5 Stormwater Plan Modifications Did DEMLR require a modification to the Stormwater Plan? Not Reviewed --- If yes, did the permittee complete the modifications in accordance with the established deadline? Not Reviewed --- Comments None. II.A.6 Sharing Responsibility Are any control measures implemented by an entity other than the permittee? Yes 1 If yes, is there a written agreement in place? Yes 1 Comments The City maintained an agreement with RiverLink, a volunteer watershed organization, for the inspection and maintenance of stormwater control measures at select City-owned properties. II.A.7 Written Procedures The permittee maintained written procedures for implementing the six minimum control measures. Yes --- Written procedures identified specific action steps, schedules, resources and responsibilities for implementing the six minimum measures. Yes --- Comments The City’s MS4 program was implemented based on procedures described in the City’s most recent annual report, which acted as the Stormwater Plan, and various standalone procedures, which are referenced as applicable throughout this report. III. A Program Documentation The permittee maintained documentation of all program components including, but not limited to, inspections, maintenance activities, educational programs, implementation of BMPs, enforcement actions etc., on file for a period of five years. Yes --- MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 6 of 28 Program Implementation, Documentation, & Assessment Permit Citation Program Requirement Status Supporting Doc No. Comments COA stormwater documentation was retained in a combination of electronic databases (e.g., Accela) and hardcopy files dating back beyond the required three-year retention period. III.B Annual Report Submittal The permittee submitted annual reports to the Department within twelve months from the effective date of the permit. Yes --- The permittee submitted subsequent annual reports every twelve months from the scheduled date of the first submittal. Yes --- The Annual Reports included appropriate information to accurately describe the progress, status, and results of the permittee’s Stormwater Plan, including, but not limited to the following: 1. A detailed description of the status of implementation of the Stormwater Plan as a whole. This will include information on development and implementation of each major component of the Stormwater Plan for the past year and schedules and plans for the year following each report. Yes --- 2. An adequate description and justification of any proposed changes to the Stormwater Plan. This will include descriptions and supporting information for the proposed changes and how these changes will impact the Stormwater Plan (results, effectiveness, implementation schedule, etc.). No --- 3. Documentation of any necessary changes to programs or practices for assessment of management measures implemented through the Stormwater Plan. No --- 4. A summary of data accumulated as part of the Stormwater Plan throughout the year along with an assessment of what the data indicates in light of the Stormwater Plan. Yes --- 5. An assessment of compliance with the permit, information on the establishment of appropriate legal authorities, inspections, and enforcement actions. Partial --- 6. A summary of past year activities, including where applicable, specific quantities achieved and summaries of enforcement actions. Yes --- 7. A description of the effectiveness of each program component. No --- 8. Planned activities and changes for the next reporting period, for each program component or activity. Yes --- 9. Fiscal analysis. Yes --- Comments The Annual Report did not include a description of the effectiveness of each program element or include a description of any changes to the Stormwater Plan. There was some discussion about program effectiveness, but not in the context of permit compliance. MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 7 of 28 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Permit Citation Program Requirement Status Supporting Doc No. II.D.2.a IDDE Program The permittee maintained a written IDDE Program. Partial 2 If yes, the written program includes provisions for program assessment and evaluation. No 2 Comments COA representatives provided a document titled “IDDE Program” which is a copy of the IDDE section of the 2017-2018 Annual Report, which also acted as the Stormwater Plan. The document does not contain procedures by which the City implements all elements of the IDDE program, but instead describes accomplishments and proposed objectives for the program. In some cases, the accomplishments describe the implementation procedures of a particular IDDE program element. II.D.2.b Legal Authorities The permittee maintained an IDDE ordinance or other regulatory mechanism(s) that provides the legal authority to prohibit illicit connections and discharges to the MS4. Yes --- If yes, the ordinance applies throughout the corporate limits of the permittee. [Permit Part I.D] Yes --- Comments The City’s Stormwater Ordinance No. 3875 (Asheville, NC Code of Ordinances Sec. 7 -12-2, dated 9/6/2018) was included as Appendices A and B to the 2017-2018 MS4 Annual Report and was available through the City’s website. The ordinance provided the City with the necessary authority to prohibit illicit discharges and connections to the MS4 . The ordinance also included the ability to take enforcement actions. II.D.2.c Storm Sewer System Map The permittee maintained a current map showing major outfalls and receiving streams. Partial --- Comments The City’s stormwater sewer system map identified receiving streams, but did not identify outfalls (or major outfalls). Although the locations of outfalls could be inferred by identifying where the storm sewer intersected with receiving waters, the map did not include symbols showing the locations and other attributes of outfalls and major outf alls. II.D.2.d Dry Weather Flow Program The permittee maintained a program for conducting dry weather flow field observations in accordance with written procedures. No --- Comments The City did not have a program for detecting illicit discharges through dry weather field activities. City representatives explained that Illicit discharges were typically discovered through citizen reports, or by City employees during the course of other field activities, but the City did not have a proactive approach for detecting dry-weather flows. Further, the City did not have any written procedures for dry weather field activities related to the detection of illicit discharges. II.D.2.e Investigation Procedures The permittee maintained written procedures for conducting investigations o f identified illicit discharges. No --- Comments Recommendation: When written procedures for conducting investigations of identified illicit discharges are developed, ensure that they contain protocols for how and when to collect samples . Additionally, ensure that personnel are appropriately trained and are able to promptly collect samples for analysis. MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 8 of 28 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Permit Citation Program Requirement Status Supporting Doc No. II.D.2.f Track and Document Investigations For each case of an illicit discharge or potential illicit discharge, the permittee documented and tracked the following: 1. The date(s) the illicit discharge was observed Yes 3 2. The results of the investigation Yes 3 3. Any follow-up of the investigation Yes 3 4. The date the investigation was closed Yes 3 Comments The City used a document titled “IDDE Complaint Spreadsheet” to document the details of illicit discharges detected and addre ssed by the City. II.D.2.g Employee Training The permittee implemented and documented a training program for appropriate municipal staff who, as part of their normal job responsibilities, may come into contact with or otherwise observe an illicit discharge or illicit connection. Yes --- Comments Stormwater training covering IDDE and pollution prevention and good housekeeping (PP/GH) was provided on an annual basis, with a different group of employees being trained each year on a rotating basis. Additionally, new employees received stormwater training as part of orientation. II.D.2.h Public Education The permittee informed public employees of hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste. Yes 4 The permittee informed businesses of hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste. Partial --- The permittee informed the general public of hazards associated with illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste. Yes 4 Comments City representatives stated that businesses typically were not targeted with illicit discharge outreach efforts. However, the City distributed illicit discharge brochures to the community as a whole through the mail as well as at a variety of community events. Recommendation: Develop and distribute illicit discharge educational materials tailored to specific types of business (e.g., restaurants, car washes, automotive repair shops) and the potential stormwater pollutants associated with them . MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 9 of 28 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Permit Citation Program Requirement Status Supporting Doc No. II.D.2.i Public Reporting Mechanism The permittee promoted, publicized, and facilitated a reporting mechanism for the public to report illicit discharges. Yes --- The permittee promoted, publicized, and facilitated a reporting mechanism for staff to report illicit discharges. Yes --- The permittee established and implemented citizen request response procedures. Yes --- Comments The City posted a phone number on the City’s website for reporting illicit discharges. City representatives reported active use of the phone line by COA citizens. The City documented illicit discharge-related reports from citizens, as well as the response actions taken by the City, using the City’s IDDE Complaint spreadsheet. II.D.2.j Enforcement The permittee implemented a mechanism to track the issuance of notices of violation and enforcement actions administered by the permittee. Yes 3 If yes, the mechanism includes the ability to identify chronic violators for initiation of actions to reduce noncompliance. Yes 3 Comments The City’s IDDE Complaint Spreadsheet documented when certified letters were sent to property owners. These letters notify the property owners that the City had detected an illicit discharge on/from the property and warn that more severe enforcement actions (e.g. notices of violation, fines) may follow if corrective actions are not taken within a given timeframe. According to City representatives, the issuance of more severe enforcement actions had not been necessary for gaining compliance from illicit dischargers. As such, the IDDE Complaint Spreadsheet did not document the issuance of notices of violation or other enforcement actions. However, City representatives stated that if the City was to issue a notice of violation or other enforcement action for an illicit discharge, it would be entered into the spreadsheet. MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 10 of 28 Construction Site Runoff Controls SPCA Citation Program Requirement Status Supporting Doc No. § 113A-60 Local erosion and sedimentation control programs (a) The permittee has adopted an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism to enforce the erosion and sedimentation control program. Yes --- If yes, the ordinance meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the SPCA. Yes --- If yes, the ordinance applies throughout the corporate limits of the permittee. [Permit Part I.D] Yes --- Comments The City’s Stormwater, Soil Erosions [sic] and Sediment Control, Illicit Discharge and Connection Ordinance (Asheville, NC Code of Ordinances sec. 7-12-2) is included as Appendix A to the City’s 2017-2018 MS4 Annual Report. The ordinance includes provisions for construction site operators to implement and maintain erosion and sediment control BMPs and grants the City the authority to conduct inspections and enforcement at construction sites. Additionally, the City’s Flood Ordinance (Asheville, NC Code of Ordinances sec. 7-12-1; Appendix C to the City’s 2017-2018 Annual Report and Stormwater Plan) and the City’s Steep Slope Ordinance (Asheville, NC Code of Ordinances sec. 7-12-4; Appendix D to the City’s 2017-2018 Annual Report and Stormwater Plan) contain erosion and sediment control requirements for construction activities. § 113A-60 Local erosion and sedimentation control programs (d) The permittee collects a fee paid by each person who submits an erosion and sedimentation control plan. Yes 5 Comments (indicate the fee amount, if applicable) COA implemented a stormwater permit fee structure based on whether construction activity is commercial or residential, the area of disturbance, and the duration of the project. Stormwater and grading permit fees ranged between $100 and $2,000. The fee structure was posted on the City’s website. Additionally, developers were charged an amendment fee if they made changes to the erosion and sediment control plans following initial approval that warranted another review by the City. § 113A-60 Local erosion and sedimentation control programs (e) Has any person initiated a land-disturbing activity (within the permittee’s jurisdiction) for which an erosion and sedimentation control plan is required in the absence of an approved plan? Yes --- If yes, the permittee has notified the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission of all such cases. No --- Has the permittee determined that a person engaged in a land-disturbing activity has failed to comply with an approved erosion and sedimentation control plan? Yes --- If yes, has the permittee referred any such matters to the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission for inspection and enforcement? No --- Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program Delegation Status ☒ The permittee has a delegated erosion and sedimentation control program. ☐ The permittee does not have a delegated erosion and sedimentation control program. Note: the requirements in this section are cited from the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (SPCA) of 1973. MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 11 of 28 Construction Site Runoff Controls SPCA Citation Program Requirement Status Supporting Doc No. Comments City representatives explained that the City requires formal plan reviews for construction projects as small as 10,000 square feet, whereas the SPCA requires stormwater plan approval and permit issuance for projects greater than one acre. City representatives explained that small residential projects occasionally begin construction without going through the plan review process because the property owner did not know of the requirement. In those cases, COA became aware of the project via citizen complaints. The City stated that this issue had never happened for a project greater than one acre. § 113A-61 Local approval of erosion and sedimentation control plans The permittee reviews each erosion and sedimentation control plan submitted to them and notifies the person submitting the plan that it has been approved, approved with modification, or disapproved within 30 days of receipt. Yes --- The permittee only approves an erosion and sedimentation control plan upon determining that it complies with all applicable State and local regulations. Yes --- The permittee has disapproved of an erosion and sedimentation control plan in order to protect riparian buffers along surface waters. No --- If yes, the permittee notified the Director of the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources within 10 days of the disapproval. Not Applicable --- Comments COA completed all erosion and sediment control plan reviews within approximately 14 days of receipt. Residential and small-scale commercial plans were typically reviewed within approximately three business days. City representatives explained that the City had occasionally required modifications to erosion and sediment control plans to protect riparian buffers, but had not disapproved of any plans for that reason. § 113A-61.1 Inspection of land- disturbing activity; notice of violation (a) The certificate of approval of each erosion and sedimentation control plan approved by the permittee includes a notice of the right to inspect. No --- The permittee provides for inspection of land-disturbing activities to ensure compliance with the SPCA and to determine whether the measures required in an erosion and sedimentation control plan are effective. Yes --- Comments COA representatives stated that sites are typically inspected at least once every two weeks, but sites with known issues may be inspected more frequently. § 113A-61.1 Inspection of land- disturbing activity; notice of violation (c) When the permittee determines that a person engaged in land-disturbing activity has failed to comply with the SPCA, the Permittee immediately issues a notice of violation upon that person. No --- Each notice of violation issued by the permittee specifies the date by which the person must comply. Yes --- Each notice of violation issued by the permittee informs the person of the actions that need to be taken to comply. Yes --- MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 12 of 28 Construction Site Runoff Controls SPCA Citation Program Requirement Status Supporting Doc No. Comments Typically, COA construction site inspectors verbally communicated SPCA violations to the construction operator and agree on a timeline for correction without issuing a formal notice of violation. For a recurring issue, or an issue that has direct impa ct on receiving waters, a notice of violation was immediately issued. The City first issued a notice of violation without a fine; however, if the issue persisted, a notice of violation with a fine was issued. Recommendation: Develop a written plan (e.g., an Enforcement Response Plan) as part of the written SWMP that clearly states what enforcement actions (e.g., issuing a notice of violation) are to be taken by COA construction site inspectors for various violations observed at construction sites. The written plan should also include protocols for how and when to escalate enforcement actions with more severe penalties. § 113A-64 Penalties Does the permittee issue civil penalties as part of the erosion and sedimentation program? Partial --- Comments (indicate when/why a civil penalty is issued, and the amount, if applicable) COA maintained the authority to issue civil penalties for erosion and sediment control violations at construction sites, but City representatives stated that compliance is always achieved via verbal communication or notices of violation (NOVs) that do not include a monetary penalty. II.E.3 Construction Site Runoff Controls [NPDES Permit No. NCS000435] The permittee provides and promotes a means for the public to notify the appropriate authorities of observed erosion and sedimentation problems (e.g., promoting the existence of the DEQ DEMLR “Stop Mud” hotline). Yes --- Comments The City posted a phone number for reporting erosion and sedimentation problems on its website. MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 13 of 28 Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Permit Citation Program Requirement Status Supporting Doc No. II.G.2.a Facility Inventory The permittee maintained a current inventory of facilities and operations owned and operated by the permittee with the potential for generating polluted stormwater runoff. Partial --- Comments City representatives stated that not all municipal facilities/properties had been evaluated for the potential to generate polluted stormwater runoff. The City maintained an inventory of all municipally-owned properties and annually inspected a subset as part of the PP/GH program. However, these facilities were chosen to be inspected based on institutional knowledge rather than a formal, field-based evaluation. Recommendation: Conduct a documented evaluation of all municipally owned facilities/properties for the potential to generate polluted stormwater runoff to determine if additional facilities should be included in the pollution prevention and good housekeeping program. II.G.2.b Operation and Maintenance (O&M) for Facilities The permittee maintained and implemented an O&M program for municipally owned and operated facilities with the potential for generating polluted stormwater runoff. Partial --- If yes, the O&M program specifies the frequency of inspections. No --- If yes, the O&M program specifies the frequency of routine maintenance requirements. No --- If yes, the permittee evaluated the O&M program annually and updated it as necessary. No --- Comments The City’s pollution prevention and good housekeeping program was not implemented according to a written O&M program specifying inspection and maintenance requirements. COA conducted annual pollution prevention and good housekeeping inspections at a set of municipal facilities including Fleet, General Services, Parks & Recreation, the City’s twelve fire stations, and others. However, many municipally-owned and maintained properties (e.g., parks, golf courses, parking lots, garages, greenways, etc.) were not inspected and had not been formally evaluated for the potential to po llute stormwater. II.G.2.c Spill Response Procedures The permittee had written spill response procedures for municipal operations. Yes 6 Comments The City developed and maintained written spill response procedures for municipal facilities. The spill response procedures were included in the City’s municipal facility Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SPPPs). II.G.2.d Streets, Roads, and Public Parking Lots Maintenance The permittee evaluated, based on cost and the estimated quantity of pollutants removed, existing and new BMPs annually that reduce polluted stormwater runoff from municipally-owned streets, roads, and public parking lots within its corporate limits. Partial --- MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 14 of 28 Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Permit Citation Program Requirement Status Supporting Doc No. Comments COA representatives stated that opportunities for incorporating stormwater BMPs into new development are continuously evaluated; however, evaluations based on cost and estimated pollutant removal are not always conducted and do not extend to existing BMPs. II.G.2.e O&M for Catch Basins and Conveyance Systems The permittee maintained and implemented an O&M program for the stormwater sewer system including catch basins and conveyance systems that it owns and maintains. Yes 7 Comments The City’s public works department was responsible for maintaining and cleaning the stormwater sewer system. Stormwater conveyance and catch basin cleanings were performed in response to complaints/issues using City-owned vacuum trucks. The City maintained and implemented a document titled “Vacuum Truck Operations” which contained procedures for cleaning MS4 infrastructure. Additionally, the public works department swept City streets at least three times annually; high-traffic areas were swept more frequently. Recommendation: adopt a practice, based on written procedures, of pro -actively inspecting and cleaning the stormwater sewer system including catch basins and conveyance systems. II.G.2.f Structural Stormwater Controls The permittee maintained a current inventory of municipally-owned or operated structural stormwater controls installed for compliance with the permittee’s post- construction ordinance. Yes 8 Comments The City lists all municipally-owned or operated structural stormwater controls in a table titled “City SCMs.” MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 15 of 28 Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Permit Citation Program Requirement Status Supporting Doc No. II.G.2.g O&M for Structural Stormwater Controls The permittee maintained and implemented an O&M program for municipally -owned or maintained structural stormwater controls installed for compliance with the permittee’s post-construction ordinance. Yes 1 The O&M program specified the frequency of inspections and routine maintenance requirements. Yes 1 The permittee documented inspections of all municipally-owned or maintained structural stormwater controls. Yes 9 The permittee inspected all municipally-owned or maintained structural stormwater controls in accordance with the schedule developed by permittee. Yes 9 The permittee documented maintenance of all municipally-owned or maintained structural stormwater controls. Yes 9 The permittee maintained all municipally-owned or maintained structural stormwater controls in accordance with the schedule developed by permittee. Yes 9 Comments COA maintained an agreement with RiverLink (a volunteer organization) to perform monthly inspections and routine maintenance of municipally-owned structural SCMs. RiverLink provided City representatives with a spreadsheet documenting the inspections and maintenance. II.G.2.h Pesticide, Herbicide and Fertilizer Application Management The permittee ensured municipal employees are properly trained. Yes --- The permittee ensured contractors are properly trained. Not Applicable --- The permittee ensured all permits, certifications, and other measures for applicators are followed. Yes --- Comments At the time of the inspection, COA applied herbicide to select areas at municipally-owned properties. Herbicide was not stored in bulk by the City; only small amounts were kept on hand. COA representatives stated that the herbicides were applied only by C ity employees with applicator licenses and were not applied to curb and gutter areas or near waterbodies. City employee applicator licenses were verified during the inspection. II.G.2.i Staff Training The permittee implemented an employee training program for employees involved in implementing pollution prevention and good housekeeping practices. Yes --- Comments Stormwater training, covering IDDE and PP/GH was provided on an annual basis, with a different group of employees being trained each year on a rotating basis. Additionally, new employees received stormwater training as part of orienta tion. II.G.2.j Vehicle and Equipment Cleaning The permittee described and implemented measures that prevent or minimize contamination of stormwater runoff from all areas used for vehicle and equipment cleaning. Yes --- MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 16 of 28 Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Permit Citation Program Requirement Status Supporting Doc No. Comments BMPs were implemented at the E-building to prevent the stormwater pollution associated with street sweeper cleaning activities. See Site Visit Evaluation: Municipal Facility No. 2 for more detail. City representatives explained that all other municipal vehicles were washed at the City’s General Services facility, where there was a vehicle wash pad plumbed to an oil/water separator and subsequently to the sanitary sewer. The inspection team did not conduct a site visit to the General Services facility. MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 17 of 28 Site Visit Evaluation: Municipal Facility No. 1 Facility Name: Parks and Recreation Date and Time of Site Visit: 9/27/2018 3:00pm – 4:00pm Facility Address: 55 Hunt Hill Pl. Asheville, NC 28801 Facility Type (Vehicle Maintenance, Landscaping, etc.): Equipment/Materials Storage Name of MS4 inspector(s): Keisha Lipe, Stormwater Quality, City of Asheville Most Recent MS4 Inspection (Date and Entity): 9/20/2018 (COA) Name(s) and Title(s) of Facility Representative(s) Present During the Site Visit: Name Title James Ball Facility Manager Observations Facility Documentation/Training Does the facility have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP) or similar document? Is it facility-specific? Yes. The facility-specific SPPP was on site at the time of the inspection and was reviewed by the MS4 inspec tor. What type of stormwater training do facility employees receive? How often? Stormwater training is provided to facility employees as part of orientation upon hire. Also, stormwater training is provided annually to a group of municipal employees, which rotates from year to year. Inspector Training/Knowledge What type of stormwater training does the MS4 inspector receive? How often? The MS4 Inspector attended a variety of stormwater trainings administered by State, University, and nonprofit organizations dating back to 2009. The most recent training completed by the MS4 Inspector was a Stormwater BMP Inspection & Maintenance Recertification through the NC State University NC Cooperative Extension in August 2018. Did the MS4 inspector appear knowledgeable about Permit requirements for pollution prevention and good housekeeping? Yes. Did the MS4 inspector appear knowledgeable about stormwater pollution prevention and good housekeeping? Yes. The MS4 inspector identified multiple areas of concern at the facility with regard to PP/GH. Inspection Procedures Does the MS4 inspector’s process include the use of a checklist or other standardized form? Yes. The inspector used an electronic checklist to document the inspection. The checklist had the capability to include photograph s. Does the MS4 inspector’s process include taking photos? Yes. Does the MS4 inspector’s process include reviewing the facility’s SPPP (or similar document)? Yes. MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 18 of 28 Site Visit Evaluation: Municipal Facility No. 1 Does the MS4 inspector’s process include walking the entire facility and inspecting all points of discharge? No. The inspection thoroughly evaluated pollution source control , but did not focus on discharge points and/or receiving water condition assessment. Did the MS4 inspector miss any obvious areas of concern? If so, explain: No. The MS4 inspector successfully identified the issues detailed below. Does the MS4 inspector’s process include presenting the inspection findings to the facility contact ? Yes. The inspector held a closing discussion with facility representatives to review the areas of concern that were identified. Inspection Results Did the facility inspection result in any corrective actions to be implemented? If so, for what issue(s)? The MS4 inspector advised the facility to update the facility SPPP binder , ensure that spill kits are labeled, and address leaky vehicles in the outdoor parking area by using drip pans and/or removing the leaky vehicles. If compliance corrective actions were identified, what timeline for correction/follow-up was provided? One week. Notes/Comments/Recommendations The following areas of concern with regard to stormwater pollution prevention and good housekeeping were observed at the facility: 1. Multiple petroleum product stains were observed on the impervious surface of the vehicle parking area in the northeast area of the facility (refer to Appendix B, Photographs 1 through 4). 2. A storm drain inlet in the west area of the facility lacked a catch basin or grate and lacked inlet protection BMPs (refer to Appendix B, Photographs 5 and 6). There was a cement block and a construction cone on top on the inlet at the time of the site visit to prevent vehicles from running over it. City representatives stated that the sewer pipe was too shallow to insta ll a catch basin, and that they would have to evaluate other options for p reventing potential pollutants from entering the inlet. Recommendation: Ensure that all municipal facility inspections evaluate discharge points and, if applicable, receiving water conditions. Update the City’s municipal facility inspection checklist to include these items. Recommendation: Work with staff at NCDEQ DEMLR to ensure that stormwater discharges from the facility is appropriately covere d under the industrial general permit. MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 19 of 28 Site Visit Evaluation: Municipal Facility No. 2 Facility Name: Public Works, E Building Date and Time of Site Visit: 9/27/2018 4:00pm – 5:00pm Facility Address: 171 S. Charlotte St. Asheville, NC 28801 Facility Type (Vehicle Maintenance, Landscaping, etc.): Equipment/Materials Storage Name of MS4 inspector(s): Keisha Lipe, Stormwater Quality, City of Asheville Most Recent MS4 Inspection (Date and Entity): 9/20/2018 (COA) Name(s) and Title(s) of Facility Representative(s) Present During the Site Visit: Name Title McCray Coates Stormwater Coordinator Observations Facility Documentation/Training Does the facility have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP) or similar document? Is it facility-specific? Yes. The facility-specific SPPP was on site at the time of the inspection and was reviewed by the MS4 inspector. What type of stormwater training do facility employees receive? How often? Stormwater training is provided to facility employees as part of orientation upon hire. Also, stormwater training is provided annually to a group of municipal employees which rotates from year to year. Inspector Training/Knowledge What type of stormwater training does the MS4 inspector receive? How often? The MS4 Inspector attended a variety of stormwater trainings administered by State, University, and nonprofit organizations dating back to 2009. Did the MS4 inspector appear knowledgeable about Permit requirements for pollution prevention and good housekeeping? Yes. Did the MS4 inspector appear knowledgeable about stormwater pollution prevention and good housekeeping? Yes. The MS4 inspector identified multiple areas of concern at the facility with regard to PP/GH. Inspection Procedures Does the MS4 inspector’s process include the use of a checklist or other standardized form? Yes. The inspector used an electronic checklist to document the inspection. The checklist had the capability to include photograph s. Does the MS4 inspector’s process include taking photos? Yes. Does the MS4 inspector’s process include reviewing the facility’s SPPP (or similar document)? Yes. MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 20 of 28 Site Visit Evaluation: Municipal Facility No. 2 Does the MS4 inspector’s process include walking the entire facility and inspecting all points of discharge? No. The inspection thoroughly evaluated pollution source control , but did not focus on discharge points and/or receiving water condition assessment. Did the MS4 inspector miss any obvious areas of concern? If so, explain: No. The MS4 inspector successfully identified the issues detailed below. Does the MS4 inspector’s process include presenting the inspection findings to the facility contact ? Yes. The inspector held a closing discussion with facility representatives to review the areas of concern that were identified. Inspection Results Did the facility inspection result in any corrective actions to be implemented? If so, for what issue(s)? The MS4 inspector instructed the facility representative to close the valve on the facility’s brine tank secondary containment structure and to ensure that garbage truck washing occurred only at the City’s Transit facility . The MS4 inspector also instructed the facility to clean up an area inside the E-building where paints, chalk, and other potential pollutants were stored. However, drains inside the E-building were plumbed to an oil/water separator and subsequently to the sanitary sewer, so these materials did not appear to have the potential to pollute stormwater at the time of the site visit. If compliance corrective actions were identified, what timeline for correction/follow-up was provided? One week. Notes/Comments/Recommendations Street sweepers were washed outside the salt storage barn in the northwest area of the facility (refer to Appendix B, Photograph 7). Soap was not used, and the wash water was treated using a filter cloth before discharge to the storm sewer. Additionally, the storm drain inlet nearest to the street sweeper washing area had a filter bag BMP installed inside. City representatives stat ed that since street sweeping was not conducted during the winter, street sweeper washing did not occur at this location at times whe n salt was actively being used by the City for de-icing. Therefore, the inspection team did not observe any areas of concern related to street sweeper washing at the facility. The following area of concern with regard to stormwater pollution prevention and good housekeeping were observed at the facility: 1. The valve on the secondary containment structure for the facility’s brine tanks was open at the time of the site visit (refer to Appendix B, Photographs 7 and 8). Recommendation: Ensure that all municipal facility inspections evaluate discharge points and, if applicable, receiving water condition. Update the City’s municipal fac ility inspection checklist to include these items. Recommendation: Work with staff at NCDEQ DEMLR to ensure that stormwater discharges from the facility is appropriately covered under the industrial general permit. MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 21 of 28 Site Visit Evaluation: MS4 Outfall No. 1 Outfall ID Number: N/A (COA outfalls did not have ID numbers) Date and Time of Site Visit: 9/28/2018 12:30 pm Outfall Location: Craven St. at the French Broad River Outfall Description (Pipe Material/Diameter, Culvert, etc.): 24” (estimate) corrugated metal pipe Receiving Water: French Broad River Is Flow Present? If So, Describe (Color, Approximate Flow Rate, Sheen, Odor, Floatables/Debris, etc.): None. Most Recent Outfall Inspection/Screening (Date): None. Refer to II.D.2.d, above Days Since Last Rainfall: 2 Inches: 0.45 Name of MS4 Inspector(s): N/A – the City did not conduct a formal outfall inspection in conjunction with this site visit. See Notes below for more detail. Observations Inspector Training/Knowledge What type of stormwater training does the MS4 inspector receive? How often? N/A – the City did not conduct a formal outfall inspection in conjunction with this site visit. See Notes below for more detail . Did the MS4 inspector appear knowledgeable about illicit discharge indicators and investigations? N/A – the City did not conduct a formal outfall inspection in conjunction with this site visit. See Notes below for more detail . Inspection Procedures Does the inspector’s process include the use of a checklist or other standardized form? No – the City did not have a dry-weather screening program (refer to II.D.2.d, above) and had not developed or implemented an outfall inspection checklist/form. Does the inspector’s process include taking photos? No – the City did not have a dry-weather screening program (refer to II.D.2.d, above). Did the MS4 inspector miss any obvious potential illicit discharge indicators or maintenance issues? If so, what were they? N/A – the City did not conduct a formal outfall inspection in conjunction with this site visit. See Notes below for more detail . MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 22 of 28 Site Visit Evaluation: MS4 Outfall No. 1 Inspection Results Did the outfall inspection result in any work orders or maintenance requests? If so, for what issue(s)? Unknown – City representatives did not indicate if the site visit would lead to any maintenance requests. Will a follow-up outfall inspection be conducted? If so, for what reason? Unknown – City representatives did not indicate if the outfall(s) would be formally inspected at a later date. Notes/Comments/Recommendations At the time of the inspection, the City did not have a dry-weather screening program (refer to II.D.2.d, above). This site visit was conducted to demonstrate to City representatives how a dry-weather outfall inspection should be conducted and to assess the condition of the outfall(s). The outfall location had two corrugated metal pipes, which discharged into the French Broad River. Because the City did not have a complete outfall map/inventory, it was unclear if both pipes were MS4 outfalls. The City’s storm sewer system map showed a single conveyance leading to the outfall location (refer to Appendix A, Supporting Document 10). One of the pipes was partially severed approximately 3 feet upstream from the mouth of the pipe (refer to Appendix B, Photograph 9). MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 23 of 28 Site Visit Evaluation: MS4 Outfall No. 2 Outfall ID Number: N/A (COA outfalls did not have ID numbers) Date and Time of Site Visit: 9/28/2018 12:40 pm Outfall Location: Craven St. at the French Broad River Outfall Description (Pipe Material/Diameter, Culvert, etc.): 24” (estimate) concrete pipe with headwall Receiving Water: French Broad River Is Flow Present? If So, Describe (Color, Approximate Flow Rate, Sheen, Odor, Floatables/Debris, etc.): None. There was some sedimentation in the mouth of the pipe, but it appeared to be a result of backflow from the French Broad River. Most Recent Outfall Inspection/Screening (Date): None. Refer to II.D.2.d, above Days Since Last Rainfall: 2 Inches: 0.45 Name of MS4 Inspector(s): N/A – the City did not conduct a formal outfall inspection in conjunction with this site visit. See Notes below for more detail . Observations Inspector Training/Knowledge What type of stormwater training does the MS4 inspector receive? How often? N/A – the City did not conduct a formal outfall inspection in conjunction with this site visit. See Notes below for more detail . Did the MS4 inspector appear knowledgeable about illicit discharge indicators and investigations? N/A – the City did not conduct a formal outfall inspection in conjunction with this site visit. See Notes below for more detail. Inspection Procedures Does the inspector’s process include the use of a checklist or other standardized form? Obtain copy. No – the City did not have a dry-weather screening program (refer to II.D.2.d, above) and had not developed or implemented an outfall inspection checklist/form. Does the inspector’s process include taking photos? No – the City did not have a dry-weather screening program (refer to II.D.2.d, above). Did the MS4 inspector miss any obvious potential illicit discharge indicators or maintenance issues? If so, what were they? N/A – the City did not conduct a formal outfall inspection in conjunction with this site visit. See Notes below for more detail. MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 24 of 28 Site Visit Evaluation: MS4 Outfall No. 2 Inspection Results Did the outfall inspection result in any work orders or maintenance requests? If so, for what issue(s)? Unknown – City representatives did not indicate if the site visit would lead to any maintenance requests. Will a follow-up outfall inspection be conducted? If so, for what reason? Unknown – City representatives did not indicate if the outfall(s) would be formally inspected at a later date. Notes/Comments/Recommendations At the time of the inspection, the City did not have a dry-weather screening program (refer to II.D.2.d, above). This site visit was conducted to demonstrate to City representatives how a dry-weather outfall inspection should be conducted and to assess the condition of the outfall. There was minor sedimentation in the mouth of the pipe, which appeared to be a result of backflow from the French Broad River (refer to Appendix B, Photograph 10). MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 25 of 28 Site Visit Evaluation: Construction Site No. 1 Site/Project Name: 55 S. Market St. Date and Time of Site Visit: 9/28/2018 9:00am – 10:15am Site/Project Address: 55 S. Market St. Asheville, NC 28801 Operator: Matthews Construction Project Type (Commercial, Industrial, Residential, CIP, Roadway, etc.): Residential NCG Permit ID Number: Unknown Disturbed Acreage: 1.20 Recent Enforcement Actions (Include Date): NOV on October 24, 2017 for failure to maintain erosion control measures and offsite sedimentation Name of MS4 Inspector(s): Danny Gibson Name(s) and Title(s) of Site Representative(s) Present During the Site Visit: Name Title Chris Day Civil Engineer Observations Site Documentation/Training Does the site have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP) or similar document? Is it site-specific? Yes, site-specific. Does the site have approved erosion and sedimentation control plans onsite? Are they representative of current site conditions? Yes. What type of stormwater training do site employees receive? How often? Not evaluated. Stormwater BMP inspections and maintenance were conducted by a subcontractor, Civil Designs Concepts, who was not present during the site visit. Inspector Training/Knowledge What type of stormwater training does the MS4 inspector receive? How often? Certified Erosion, Sediment and Storm Water Inspector, and Certified BMP Inspector certification through NC State University. Did the MS4 inspector appear knowledgeable about MS4 and NCG010000 requirements for construction sites? No. The MS4 inspector did not verify that the site had NCG010000 coverage, which appeared to have been required upon increasing the disturbed area of the site. The MS4 inspector also did not verify that the site was completing site self-inspections at the required frequency. Did the MS4 inspector appear knowledgeable about erosion and sedimentation control/stormwater pollution prevention BMPs? Yes. The inspector assessed BMP maintenance requirements and the potential for offsite sedimentation. MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 26 of 28 Site Visit Evaluation: Construction Site No. 1 Inspection Procedures Does the MS4 inspector’s process include the use of a checklist? Yes. Electronic Accela checklist filled out during the inspection or immediately after. Does the MS4 inspector’s process include taking photos? Yes, when issues were observed. Does the MS4 inspector’s process include reviewing approved plans (erosion and sedimentation control and/or SPPP)? Yes. Does the MS4 inspector’s process include walking the entire site and inspecting all points of discharge? No. The MS4 Inspector did not inspect the site outfall nor did he inspect the receiving MS4 inlet and outfall downstream from the site. Did the MS4 inspector miss any obvious violations? If so, explain: Yes. The MS4 inspector’s inspection report stated that “erosion control measures are in compliance but will need maintenance in the coming days” but did not identify the specific issues listed below (refer to Appendix A, Supporting Document 11). Does the MS4 inspector’s process include presenting the inspection findings to the site contact in writing? No. The MS4 inspector discussed inspection findings with the site contact, but typically did not provide them in writing unless the inspection resulted in an enforcement action . Does the MS4 inspector’s process include providing construction stormwater educational materials to the site contact? No. Compliance/Enforcement What, if any, enforcement actions (verbal warnings, NOV, etc.) did the inspection result in? None. If compliance issues were identified, what timeline for correction/follow-up was provided? None. Notes/Comments/Recommendations The following areas of concern with respect to erosion and sediment control were observed at the site. The MS4 Inspector did not specifically convey these issues to the permittee during any close out communication or by adequately documenting them in an inspection report (refer to Appendix A, Supporting Document 11). 1. There was sediment track out onto S. Market St. from the site’s stabilized construction entrance (refer to Appendix B, Photograph 11). Site representatives stated that they remove sediment from the roadway at the end of each day. 2. The silt fence installed along the site’s south perimeter was partially collapsed and sediment was observed off site beyond the silt fence (refer to Appendix B, Photograph 12). Additionally, silt fence installed along the site’s east perimeter had sediment accumulated against it and was not fully entrenched into the ground (refer to Appendix B, Photographs 13 and 14). 3. There was a storm drain inlet near the site entrance that had silt fence installed around it (refer to Appendix B, Photograph 15). The North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, Chapter 6 (Inlet Protection) does not include inlet protection BMP designs that use silt fence. In addition, accumulated sediment was observed inside the catch basin (refer to Appendix B, Photograph 16). MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 27 of 28 Site Visit Evaluation: Construction Site No. 2 Site/Project Name: Skyland Exchange (55 Miami Circle) Date and Time of Site Visit: 9/28/2018 10:15am – 11:15am Site/Project Address: 70 Allen Avenue Asheville, NC 28803 Operator: Hathaway Construction Project Type (Commercial, Industrial, Residential, CIP, Roadway, etc.): Residential NCG Permit ID Number: Unknown Disturbed Acreage: 10.98 Recent Enforcement Actions (Include Date): None. Name of MS4 Inspector(s): Gary Jarvis Name(s) and Title(s) of Site Representative(s) Present During the Site Visit: Name Title Kenny Gilley Site Supervisor Observations Site Documentation/Training Does the site have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP) or similar document? Is it site-specific? Yes, site-specific. Does the site have approved erosion and sedimentation control plans onsite? Are they representative of current site conditions? Yes. What type of stormwater training do site employees receive? How often? Not evaluated. Stormwater BMP inspections and maintenance were conducted by a subcontractor, who was not present during the site visit. Inspector Training/Knowledge What type of stormwater training does the MS4 inspector receive? How often? Certified Erosion, Sediment and Storm Water Inspector, and Certified BMP Inspector certification through NC State University. Did the MS4 inspector appear knowledgeable about MS4 and NCG010000 requirements for construction sites? No. The MS4 inspector did not verify that the site had NCG010000 coverage. The MS4 inspector also did not verify that the site was completing site self-inspections at the required frequency. Did the MS4 inspector appear knowledgeable about erosion and sedimentation control/stormwater pollution prevention BMPs? Yes. The inspector assessed BMP maintenance requirements. MS4 Inspection Report Asheville, NC: NPDES Permit No. NCS000435 Inspection Date: September 27-28, 2018 Page 28 of 28 Site Visit Evaluation: Construction Site No. 2 Inspection Procedures Does the MS4 inspector’s process include the use of a checklist? Obtain copy. Yes. Electronic Accela checklist filled out during the inspection or immediately after. Does the MS4 inspector’s process include taking photos? Yes, when issues were observed. Does the MS4 inspector’s process include reviewing approved plans (erosion and sedimentation control and/or SPPP)? Yes. Does the MS4 inspector’s process include walking the entire site and inspecting all points of discharge? No. The MS4 inspector stated that he typically did not inspect the site’s discharge points or the receiving waters. Did the MS4 inspector miss any obvious violations? If so, explain: No. The MS4 inspector’s inspection report included the erosion and sediment control areas of concern detailed below (refer to Appendix A, Supporting Document 12). Does the MS4 inspector’s process include presenting the inspection findings to the site contact in writing? No. The MS4 inspector discussed inspection findings with the site contact, but typically did not provide them in writing unless the inspection resulted in an enforcement action . Does the MS4 inspector’s process include providing construction stormwater educational materials to the site contact? No. Compliance/Enforcement What, if any, enforcement actions (verbal warnings, NOV, etc.) did the inspection result in? None. If compliance issues were identified, what timeline for correction/follow-up was provided? Follow-up inspection was performed on October 9, 2018. Notes/Comments/Recommendations The following areas of concern with respect to erosion and sediment control were observed at the site: 1. Based on discussion with COA personnel and observations made at the time of the inspection, the site had a history of erosion and sediment control violations, including discharges of sediment from the site into receiving waters. Despite this, COA had not escalated enforcement actions against the operator. 2. The stormwater discharge point located along the site’s west perimeter did not have a rip-rap apron installed as required by the site’s erosion and sedimentation control plans (refer to Appendix B, Photograph 17). It should be noted that an unnamed tributary flowing to Lake Julian was located downgradient, approximately 75 feet west of this discharge point. 3. Evidence of erosion was observed along the top of a retaining wall along the site’s west perimeter (refer to Appendix B, Photograph 18). Accumulated sediment was observed at the bottom of th e retaining wall. It should be noted that an unnamed tributary flowing to Lake Julian was located downgradient, approximately 75 feet west of this retaining wall.